Would you have an electric car if you had the money for a new car and were in the market for one?

[Taipan]

You're talking about things everybody already knows, but trying to hide the environmental damage of EVs. Classic deflection tactics. C'mon, acknowledge the flaw in your idyll!

[Horse]

You're talking about things everybody already knows, but trying to hide the environmental damage of EVs. Classic deflection tactics. C'mon, acknowledge the flaw in your idyll!

Although the people who want to publicise EV battery fires are probably quite happy and comfortable with a phone battery in their pocket ...

[Mr. Dazzle]

You're talking about things everybody already knows, but trying to hide the environmental damage of EVs. Classic deflection tactics. C'mon, acknowledge the flaw in your idyll!

Yeah I'm trying to hide it by showing a chart which agrees with your statement about them using loads of Cobalt for example I'm also hiding it by telling of the industry effort going into reduce it of course.

I don't deny of the statements about them uing all these materials etc. What I do need to point out though, on an ongoing basis to a lot of people, is that the environmental damage done by EV production/use is already LESS than that done by ICE vehicles "all in" and is getting better very quickly. So their green credentials are not a lie and things don't have to be perfect to be an improvement.

Saying things like "electricity is a secondary product" with no explanation suggests to me you're getting all your info from Facebook and GB news and some balance is needed.

Same sort of thing with the diesel generator comments lots of people love to make. Charging an EV from a fixed diesel generator is generally more fuel efficient and releases less NOX and particles than driving equivalent diesel vehicles. Fixed ICE engines can be much cleaner than ones in moving vehicles. You don't have to make it perfect to make it better.

[Taipan]

You're talking about things everybody already knows, but trying to hide the environmental damage of EVs. Classic deflection tactics. C'mon, acknowledge the flaw in your idyll!

Yeah I'm trying to hide it by showing a chart which agrees with your statement about them using loads of Cobalt for example I'm also hiding it by telling of the industry effort going into reduce it of course.

I don't deny of the statements about them uing all these materials etc. What I do need to point out though, on an ongoing basis to a lot of people, is that the environmental damage done by EV production/use is already LESS than that done by ICE vehicles "all in" and is getting better very quickly. So their green credentials are not a lie and things don't have to be perfect to be an improvement.

Saying things like "electricity is a secondary product" with no explanation suggests to me you're getting all your info from Facebook and GB news and some balance is needed.

Same sort of thing with the diesel generator comments lots of people love to make. Charging an EV from a fixed diesel generator is generally more fuel efficient and releases less NOX and particles than driving equivalent diesel vehicles. Fixed ICE engines can be much cleaner than ones in moving vehicles. You don't have to make it perfect to make it better.

Electricity is not a primary source and never has been, ergo its secondary. You dont need facebook to know that, google will show you as many sources as you want and I dont believe you don't know that. There are diesel generators providing power for EVs and you also know that. So everything I've said is true an you also know that. Stop making EVs out to be cleaner than they are, as they are not an emission free mode of transport. Where do we do agree is that they heading in the right direction.

[Count Steer]

Got me interested in what defines a primary fuel. Always thought gas was as you can burn it, pretty much, straight out of the ground.

'Primary fuels are energy sources in their natural state, directly used for energy consumption, such as oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear fuels, before any transformation or processing'.

Nuclear fuels though???

It seemed, at first glance, a funny mix. You can use them all to make secondary energy like electricity. Oil, coal (and wood) and gas all burn so you can use them as fuel to heat your home or raise steam/generate electricity and I suppose that's how nuclear works (not that you'd burn it at home but you can heat your big power plant boiler).

So...shouldn't wind, sunshine and water (hydroelectric, wave etc) be on the primary list?

[Mr. Dazzle]

Electricity is not a primary source and never has been, ergo its secondary. You dont need facebook to know that, google will show you as many sources as you want and I dont believe you don't know that. There are diesel generators providing power for EVs and you also know that. So everything I've said is true an you also know that. Stop making EVs out to be cleaner than they are, as they are not an emission free mode of transport. Where do we do agree is that they heading in the right direction.

My point is that you use that term but you seemingly don't understand the significance, or not, of it. Hence why I think you're recycling a Facebook opinion.

I know electricity isn't a primary source of energy. Why do you think it's significant?

[Rockburner]

You're talking about things everybody already knows, but trying to hide the environmental damage of EVs. Classic deflection tactics. C'mon, acknowledge the flaw in your idyll!

Yeah I'm trying to hide it by showing a chart which agrees with your statement about them using loads of Cobalt for example I'm also hiding it by telling of the industry effort going into reduce it of course.

I don't deny of the statements about them uing all these materials etc. What I do need to point out though, on an ongoing basis to a lot of people, is that the environmental damage done by EV production/use is already LESS than that done by ICE vehicles "all in" and is getting better very quickly. So their green credentials are not a lie and things don't have to be perfect to be an improvement.

Saying things like "electricity is a secondary product" with no explanation suggests to me you're getting all your info from Facebook and GB news and some balance is needed.

Same sort of thing with the diesel generator comments lots of people love to make. Charging an EV from a fixed diesel generator is generally more fuel efficient and releases less NOX and particles than driving equivalent diesel vehicles. Fixed ICE engines can be much cleaner than ones in moving vehicles. You don't have to make it perfect to make it better.

Electricity is not a primary source and never has been, ergo its secondary. You dont need facebook to know that, google will show you as many sources as you want and I dont believe you don't know that. There are diesel generators providing power for EVs and you also know that. So everything I've said is true an you also know that. Stop making EVs out to be cleaner than they are, as they are not an emission free mode of transport. Where do we do agree is that they heading in the right direction.

You say that like "an emission free mode of transport" exists....

(even walking creates emissions.... )

[Rockburner]

Got me interested in what defines a primary fuel. Always thought gas was as you can burn it, pretty much, straight out of the ground.

'Primary fuels are energy sources in their natural state, directly used for energy consumption, such as oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear fuels, before any transformation or processing'.

Nuclear fuels though???

It seemed, at first glance, a funny mix. You can use them all to make secondary energy like electricity. Oil, coal (and wood) and gas all burn so you can use them as fuel to heat your home or raise steam/generate electricity and I suppose that's how nuclear works (not that you'd burn it at home but you can heat your big power plant boiler).

So...shouldn't wind, sunshine and water (hydroelectric, wave etc) be on the primary list?

I'm not sure it's possible to put raw uranium ore straight into a fission plant....

And, like I said - you can't put crude oil directly into an engine (or can you... hmm.... maybe a really really old ship engine could use crude.... but I'd expect modern ship diesels would need the to be oil refined at least somewhat).

Wind, solar, hydro all need "processing" : wind needs a generator and vanes to be built, assembled, transported, erected and connected); solar needs panels, hydro needs a dam, and generator, impellors etc.

The only real direct "primary" usage of wind would be sailing ships (or land-yachts): I'd say the only direct use of solar as primary is cats.

[Count Steer]

Got me interested in what defines a primary fuel. Always thought gas was as you can burn it, pretty much, straight out of the ground.

'Primary fuels are energy sources in their natural state, directly used for energy consumption, such as oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear fuels, before any transformation or processing'.

Nuclear fuels though???

It seemed, at first glance, a funny mix. You can use them all to make secondary energy like electricity. Oil, coal (and wood) and gas all burn so you can use them as fuel to heat your home or raise steam/generate electricity and I suppose that's how nuclear works (not that you'd burn it at home but you can heat your big power plant boiler).

So...shouldn't wind, sunshine and water (hydroelectric, wave etc) be on the primary list?

I'm not sure it's possible to put raw uranium ore straight into a fission plant....

And, like I said - you can't put crude oil directly into an engine (or can you... hmm.... maybe a really really old ship engine could use crude.... but I'd expect modern ship diesels would need the to be oil refined at least somewhat).

Yup. It was the 'natural state, directly used for energy consumption' that had me too.

Just thinking out loud really. The definitions seem a bit iffy.

Wind is probably the only true primary as you can power stuff just by hoisting a sail.

[Rockburner]

Got me interested in what defines a primary fuel. Always thought gas was as you can burn it, pretty much, straight out of the ground.

'Primary fuels are energy sources in their natural state, directly used for energy consumption, such as oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear fuels, before any transformation or processing'.

Nuclear fuels though???

It seemed, at first glance, a funny mix. You can use them all to make secondary energy like electricity. Oil, coal (and wood) and gas all burn so you can use them as fuel to heat your home or raise steam/generate electricity and I suppose that's how nuclear works (not that you'd burn it at home but you can heat your big power plant boiler).

So...shouldn't wind, sunshine and water (hydroelectric, wave etc) be on the primary list?

I'm not sure it's possible to put raw uranium ore straight into a fission plant....

And, like I said - you can't put crude oil directly into an engine (or can you... hmm.... maybe a really really old ship engine could use crude.... but I'd expect modern ship diesels would need the to be oil refined at least somewhat).

Yup. It was the 'natural state, directly used for energy consumption' that had me too.

Just thinking out loud really. The definitions seem a bit iffy.

Wind is probably the only true primary as you can power stuff just by hoisting a sail.

Well - you'd need to make the sail first (and the boat), but it's probably the closest thing to "primary". Are there any naturally occurring leaves in nature that are big enough to generate motive force if tied to a fallen log (using woven creeper vines, natch)?

[Horse]

Probably the only true primary source is sunlight.

No preparation or manufacturing needed. Just place something in direct sunlight and it will warm up.

[Count Steer]

Probably the only true primary source is sunlight.

No preparation or manufacturing needed. Just place something in direct sunlight and it will warm up.

....and that comes out of a jolly big fusion reactor.

[Rockburner]

Probably the only true primary source is sunlight.

No preparation or manufacturing needed. Just place something in direct sunlight and it will warm up.

Ah, but how to use that as a motive force?

[Taipan]

Electricity is not a primary source and never has been, ergo its secondary. You dont need facebook to know that, google will show you as many sources as you want and I dont believe you don't know that. There are diesel generators providing power for EVs and you also know that. So everything I've said is true an you also know that. Stop making EVs out to be cleaner than they are, as they are not an emission free mode of transport. Where do we do agree is that they heading in the right direction.

My point is that you use that term but you seemingly don't understand the significance, or not, of it. Hence why I think you're recycling a Facebook opinion.

I know electricity isn't a primary source of energy. Why do you think it's significant?

I don't need to quote a source as I thought you'd understand that and why on earth would I quote facebook or use it as a source? You're the internet generation whose opinions and source is googled, not me. You keep promoting EVs as something they're not, then deflect by saying how bad ICE are. We all know that, break even points aside...

[Count Steer]

Probably the only true primary source is sunlight.

No preparation or manufacturing needed. Just place something in direct sunlight and it will warm up.

Ah, but how to use that as a motive force?

Solar sail? Works better in a vacuum though. (See Crookes radiometer ).

[Rockburner]

Probably the only true primary source is sunlight.

No preparation or manufacturing needed. Just place something in direct sunlight and it will warm up.

Ah, but how to use that as a motive force?

Solar sail? Works better in a vacuum though. (See Crookes radiometer ).

I found out about Crookes radiometers only last year - i'm so tempted to get one.

[demographic]

You're talking about things everybody already knows, but trying to hide the environmental damage of EVs. Classic deflection tactics. C'mon, acknowledge the flaw in your idyll!

So you thought the use of cobalt mined by children in the DRC was a massive issue when you thought you could use it as an argument against EVs but now you know its also used in refining processes, laptops, high speed steels, and so that you still use with gay abandon you want to change the subject.
Hmm, get yer talking points from (k) GB news much?
As an aside, large EV batteries can have a second life as grid storage when they're no longer holding so much range as when new, then being big they're easier to recycle the materials from than scatty little batteries.

[Count Steer]

Ah, but how to use that as a motive force?

Solar sail? Works better in a vacuum though. (See Crookes radiometer ).

I found out about Crookes radiometers only last year - i'm so tempted to get one.

You can get quite a nice one for about £39.

[ZRX61]

I'm not sure it's possible to put raw uranium ore straight into a fission plant....

And, like I said - you can't put crude oil directly into an engine (or can you... hmm.... maybe a really really old ship engine could use crude.... but I'd expect modern ship diesels would need the to be oil refined at least somewhat).

Wind, solar, hydro all need "processing" : wind needs a generator and vanes to be built, assembled, transported, erected and connected); solar needs panels, hydro needs a dam, and generator, impellors etc.

The only real direct "primary" usage of wind would be sailing ships (or land-yachts): I'd say the only direct use of solar as primary is cats.

If it needed processing first, we wouldn't have oil well fires...

[mangocrazy]

I'm not sure it's possible to put raw uranium ore straight into a fission plant....

And, like I said - you can't put crude oil directly into an engine (or can you... hmm.... maybe a really really old ship engine could use crude.... but I'd expect modern ship diesels would need the to be oil refined at least somewhat).

Wind, solar, hydro all need "processing" : wind needs a generator and vanes to be built, assembled, transported, erected and connected); solar needs panels, hydro needs a dam, and generator, impellors etc.

The only real direct "primary" usage of wind would be sailing ships (or land-yachts): I'd say the only direct use of solar as primary is cats.

If it needed processing first, we wouldn't have oil well fires...

Of course it needs processing. Just because crude is flammable does not mean it doesn't need refining. Crude as it leaves the ground is essentially useless; it's the refining process that turns it into liquid gold. And plastic, and millions of other things.